TRUSTEES RIGHT TO FIGHT DRUGS

The editorial Unjustified intrusions (Nov. 5) is a brash attempt to vilify
the Winkler school board for doing something when many are talking of doing
away with school boards because they are inept and do little or nothing to
help discipline in schools. I was shocked to read an article condemning a
board for standing up against drug use in school. Immediately it was
suggested that breathalysers could be next -- what would be wrong with
that, as we already allow condom machines in many schools? It is this kind
of thinking that probably resulted in our age of sexual consent being
lowered to 14 from 16. That's right, a 14-year-old girl does not have to
listen to her parents about sexual indulgence. The author feels that first
there should be examples of a growing risk before any action should be
taken against drugs. Where has he been for the last 50 years? Then to
suggest that the Garden Valley trustees are on an ego trip is just too
much. An apology from the editor would certainly be in order.

The editorial goes on to talk about how students' lives are restricted by
actions of trustees, teachers and administrators concerning rules of
acceptable behaviour. It seems clear that nothing is to limit a student's
"rights," and trustees must not dictate a teenager's lifestyle. But is this
not exactly why our schools are in such turmoil? Nobody can impose any
regulation on students because "human rights" come first.

HENRY SCHELLENBERG

Altona